Talk:Grantham

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Grantham alphabet

There is a script called Grantham (which shows up as Grantha in Wikipedia). This page should be a disambiguation page. Swami 19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Saiswa[reply]

Disambiguation pages or tenplates are usually reserved for exact spelling matches and homophones. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Can we add a pronunciation to this page, for poor people like me who don't know whether to say 'granθam' or 'grant-ham'? Njál 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request. Maybe those know the answer are uncomfortable with the International Phonetic Association (IPA) phonetic script prescribed for the encyclopedia page? If so, please just write out the answer here in English style, either "Grant-ham" or "Gran-tham". Hcunn (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Gran-tham. --Placed at 17:01 on 21 April 2009 by 86.15.150.113

I can't believe this is a B Class article with no pronunciation guide. I added the pronunciation but it got removed. I can't believe anyone that isn't English would be able to pronounce this. Spiderone (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one is put, it should be in the same style as for Lincoln, using the Wikipedia:IPA for English. Not put as GRAN-tham or granth-AM, etc. --BSTemple (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just hoping that someone would convert it into IPA Spiderone (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newton and the apple

I've removed this text: 

 Newton actually observed the apple falling off the tree at Boothby Pagnell, not Woolsthorpe.

as it has little to do with Grantham itself and, moreover, the claim is made with no backing and it's not even given a mention on the Isaac Newton page. davep 21:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domesday Book?

Currently, I see competing claims on the same page. There is '...appeared as early as 1086 in the Domesday Book in its present form of Grantham' in Etymology (with a footnote making an effort to back this up), and yet the claims to a link to the Scottish 'Grahams' under Notable People (which sounds speculative and would really need a citation, IMHO, even if it's just a historic speculative assumption) states that 'Grantham is mentioned as "Graeg Ham"'. 62.49.25.104 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art

I recall an exhibition of 'grantham school' paintings at the museum, with works dating from the early 20th century. Does anyone know anything about this? It would be a valuable addition--Brunnian (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retail in Grantham

Is generally pretty damn fcuking sh!te —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.173.244 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Notable person. Removing sub heading. Ranking of notables.

I have added Doris Stokes, born and lived in Grantham, to 'Notable people'.

There was an Others subsection within Notable people. Apart from the internationally famous Newton and Thatcher, and that is still arguable, there shouldn't be an implied and subjective ranking within a Wikipedia Notable list. Some of those above the sub-section header seem no more notable than those below: Des Lynam and Graham Fellows (above) - Nicholas Parsons (below).

The thing might have just happened without intention: perhaps there was an original list; sombody added someone who they felt wasn't quite up to scratch, so added an 'Others' sub-header for their entry; following editors just carried on adding at the bottom.

If it was intentional, it might imply a non-Wikipedia:NPOV. I think it's better this way, and properly neutral in Wikipedia terms. The list would be even better if it was alphabetically ordered - I might give that a go sometime.

Acabashi (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Haddon Downes - BBC producer, and Richard Nauyokas

I have created a Wikipedia article for Johnny Haddon Downes, and linked it to his name already in 'Notable people'. He didn't come from Grantham, but attended The King's School, which is less tenuous than some in the Notable list, eg: Des Lynam lived here for one year - scraping the barrel there!

I have removed a (wrongly) blued but now dead link over Richard Nauyokas. Blue links are for linking to Wikipedia articles, so a suspicion of pretence and deception here. If Nauyokas is notable, and I think he probably is, then a Wikipedia article should be written about him. Any external links should be to the side of the name and linked to References, as with the Nauyokas IMDb link. External links to personal or promotional web sites are unacceptable for Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.

Acabashi (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Richard Nauyokas content page and linked it in both to the Grantham page, and to other Wikipedia pages where he was already mentioned by name.—GrahamSmith (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person Norman Shrapnel

I have created a stub article on Norman Shrapnel (1912–2004), political correspondent and author, and added it in more or less chronological order under Notable people.

He was a King's School Old Boy.

Acabashi (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Des Lynam - Harriet Hopkins

I have removed the reference to Harriet Hopkins previously added to the entry ‘Des Lynam’ under ‘Notable people’. This addition was made on 30 March 2008 by User AridCanyon as:

Des Lynam lived there with his mistress, Harriet Hopkins, from 2005 until 2006. The entry was edited, probably quite innocently, on 17 August 2008, by User:Nunquam Dormio, changing mistress to partner, that being a ‘More neutral term’.

There is no reference I can find on the web concerning a Harriet Hopkins with Des Lynam other than those which refer back to the Wikipedia article. Therefore, even if the relationship assertion was true, this addition violated Wikipedia:No original research. As there is no independently verified evidence for the assertion, (Wikipedia:Verifiability), in this article, the Des Lynam article, or on the web, the original entry should be considered Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Acabashi (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grantham Castle

Have a look at This Pathe newsreel of Grantham Castle. Where is it? I reckon it is Harlaxton Manor, but don't know enough about the ownership history to be sure.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is Harlaxton Manor - Pathé got it wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnCkp09Ue7k
Acabashi (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just studying the 1947 Ordnance survey map and Harlaxton Manor is labelled as Grantham Castle, so at the time of the Pathe Newsreel that was actually its name. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I was born (around that time) and brought up in Grantham and it was always known as Harlaxton Manor - perhaps it's a local thing - and it's not like a castle (not that means anything), not even like a fortified manor house. Perhaps Violet Van der Elst (owner at the time), a rather imperious and eccentric lady, aggrandised it. The manor itself was a 19th century build after the demolition of the previous (actually called) Harlaxton Manor. It would be interesting to see earlier maps. Sometimes the official thing gets it wrong. Middlesbrough was Middlesborough, until a civic official passed a paper to Whitehall spelling the town wrongly - the new spelling stuck. Acabashi (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalising Notable people: 29 January 2011

I have added Thomas Paine as being a world-famous notable. The list is now in a Wikified neutral alphabetical order, showing no favouritism, apart from the ‘world-famous’ – it should be debated whether or not this distinction should be made. I have removed elongated descriptions against the names to a one or two word ident as found in subject articles’ intro sentences. I have removed unnecessary mini-biogs as such information would also be duplicated in subjects’ Wiki articles. Duplication is to be avoided. Extended information previously added to list names, if verifiable but not included in the subject’s article, should be added into the relevant article and cited there… thus with all future found information.

If there is no verifiable reference to Grantham association in Wiki articles, or elsewhere, then the ‘notable’ should be removed. On this basis I have removed Des Lynam: no reference in the subject’s Wiki article to Grantham association, and no reference to association on the web except that which refers back to this article, (Des Lynam vandalism entry that slipped under the radar, by IP 82.22.45.52, 19 March 2007, as "Des Lynam lived there with his mistress, Harriet Hopkins, from 2005-2006. So true dat so true!!") and personal comment in a Grantham Gingerbreads forum/blog (Aug 2008) [1]: “Didn't Des Lynam live in Grantham a few years ago? He must be worth a few bob. And Nicholas Parsons! While we're at it we could exhume Isaac Newton to see if he took any loose change with him!” – as we see, blogs and forums are a notoriously unreliable and unviable source for Wikipedia – for this Lynam entry, see Wikipedia:NOR and Wikipedia:NPOV. He may have lived in Grantham for a short time (notable?) but hearsay, however correct, is not proven truth for Wikipedia.

I have removed Stephen Lewis: no mention of Grantham in Wiki article, and only the mentions of his association on the web refer back to this article – suspected Original Research. Can be added back into list when cited evidence is forthcoming and added into his Wiki article.

William Stukeley and Graham Fellows, although appearing to have association with Grantham, need such evidence added into their Wiki articles – I have added ref links, which should go when the articles are amended – I might give it a go at some point.

Dates against certain names were not necessary – birth, death, and association dates should be found in relevant articles if viable.

Acabashi (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerbread

The section on gingerbread is completely unsourced and inaccurate. Gingerbread is known to have existed well before 1740 - since the 14th century at least. It was very common in England before 1740, so it is unlikely that it was independently discovered in Grantham. This section should be deleted or re-written. A brief historical discussion, with sources, is found here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1912/whats-the-origin-of-the-gingerbread-man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.190.29 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure - May 2012

I have restructured the article per WP:UKTOWNS, and removed much of the editorialising, opinion, trivia, and some spam. It needs a lot more work to pull this one round, especially with refs to reliable sources. The Economy section needs a rewrite and spam and non-notable flush, and a good introductory paragraph. Notable people list needs converting to body text, again with an introductory paragraph. The companies in the Industral history section overweight the article - they have their own articles so could reasonably be precised. The sub sections are not always at the moment satisfactorily label-headed, but the various texts look as though they are in the right major sections. Acabashi (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a terrible article. I have responded to a lot of the 'citation needed' stuff, some of which is silly (it should not be necessary to duplicate references that are adequate in the wikilinkd pages, for example) But Potato factorys in Easton and pubs in Irnham are nothing to do with Grantham, which already thinks too much of itself. (and with little cause). I may take a chainsaw to it. (and to this page!)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. You have done sterling ref work here and in Lincs articles. I would support your good flushing of this article. I, like you, have wondered about the inclusion of businesses in the wider Grantham vicinity, but have been wary about removing some stuff as I'm not sure yet at what geographical point Grantham ceases to be Grantham, or at what point Grantham's wider local sphere of influence ends, particularly in the area of employment.
There are places, such as Manthorpe, Gonerby, Gonerby Moor, Harrowby, and Londonthorpe, and almost Belton, which are conjoined or almost conjoined, whereby businesses and employment could be considered socially and economically part of Grantham, such as Easton potato factory. An answer might be to shift the stuff into the adjacent villages and parishes, such as the potato factory into Easton, with a short sentence in Grantham left to indicate its employment importance to people of Grantham. If we can find a Grantham geographic boundary map this might help to shift stuff out. Having said that, Irnham, 9 miles away, is pushing it.
As for duplicating refs in Grantham that are in wikilinked articles, I think that text should be reffed everywhere, even if duplicated, as we can't expect readers (we are supposed to be reader-friendly) to always click through all the blue links in an article to search other articles to find out if there is a ref to verify a particular "fact", especially if the linked article is long - this has to be especially true with living people mentioned. And verifying text anywhere is the WP cornerstone.
One of the ways to improve the article is to clean it up as far as can be seen, then add it to Wikify and Copyedit Project request pages (not add banner temps) and a review for Good Article - more good minds will then be brought to bear. Acabashi (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell

The opening section has this ".. and was the scene of Oliver Cromwell's first advantage over Royalists during the English Civil War at Gonerby Moor." Foston, Lincolnshire makes a similar claim, but again without any support. But it is not mentioned at either Oliver Cromwell or at English Civil War. There are a few web sources, such as these partial ones: [2], [3], [4].But quite a few seem to be based just on this article. The best I can find seems to be this one: [5], giving the month of May 1643, but am not sure of its reliability. There is also this mention of "a book on Cromwell by Antonia Fraser": [6]. I wonder does anyone have this book or any better sources for the claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial history: Richard Hornsby & Sons - Problems.

There is quite a lot wrong with this section. Hornsby's took part in, and won, a trial organised by the British Army to find a suitable tractor for hauling artillery. There is no justification for saying that "the British Army" was "bemused". This section of the article on Richard Hornsby & Sons explains the events reasonably accurately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hornsby_%26_Sons#Product_range_and_inventions Hornsby's design was not "far ahead of anything else around at the time." It was complex and vulnerable, and Holt's track was far simpler and more robust. What Holt wanted was Hornsby's transmission system, which was superior to his own. To say that Holt's became the successful Caterpillar Inc. through ownership of the patent is not true. Holt did not claim to have invented Hornsby's track. This is probably confusion with a later claim in American newspapers that Holt played a direct role in the design of the British tanks. And the tank was not born "using Hornsby's initial designs;" the first British tanks and their tracks were designed, principally, by Walter Wilson and William Tritton Hengistmate (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about this subject. But quite a bit of the text in the section is unreferenced, and tagged as such for over a year. You can be bold and remove or rewrite text that is inaccurate though conflict with referenced text in the Richard Hornsby & Sons article. Your rewrite would be referenced of course, which won't be difficult as there shouldn't be anything in the section that isn't in the main article and referenced - the section would be a precis, with some of the refs carried over. What exists now as non-cited text might be good faith anecdotal, may be true, and may be original research, but if it can't be verified, it should go. Acabashi (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

Hi there,

I cleaned up the Notable persons section, and put it into a nice alpha-order.

I also took the liberty of teasing away so many of the extraneous wiki links wrapped around words we all know the definition of.

Also, Grantham native Simon Terry seemed to be missing from the list, so I added him.

Finally, there was an angry-sounding hidden message within the edit page, before the Notable person section. The message contained a lot of "do this" and "don't do this or else" wording, without so much as a please or thank you for your voluntary work. I added some much-need niceties.

Cheers all!!

Richard Apple 03:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Castle

non-logged in contributor says:

The question has been raised as to whether Grantham House was the site of a castle, however, no such site has been reliably identified. The street name "Castlegate" cannot be traced father back than the 17th century. {The Making of Grantham edited by David Start and David Stocker 2011}

I had no idea the existence of a castle was controversial. Pastscape is sure, but David Roffe is not, and I respect him a lot. quoted here. http://books.google.ch/books?id=APMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26&dq=grantham+castle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H4KvUZrUA8qr4ATitYGoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grantham%20castle&f=false Historical Notes on Grantham, and Grantham Church] from 1857 seems to be telling the same tale.

Interesting--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Roffe's explanation looks very plausible. What are his credentials? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here:
etc etc etc. You can search for him on WP too,he gets referrenced a lot.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pastcape stuff is based on a contemporary vicar's writings noted above - Assoc. Archit. Soc. Reports. Vol. 9, 1867 39 (Rev B Street). While a lot of early stuff is fine, and we all use it, we take it on faith as Pastcape has here, no doubt without checking original sources, if any, for the vicar's words. Old English "castle" can also mean a fortified house or fortified village, and "gate", Norse for street. Interpretations and corruptions can change and give a different slant on meaning. Watergate in Grantham would suggest to us a stream and a gate structure - it actually "gate" for street, and "Walker" for those who cured animal skins by treading them in vats of piss. I think sometimes old books are like the modern web - if a possible non-truth is repeated enough as a source it becomes true. Acabashi (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grantham. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Cross

I am surprised to find no reference to the Eleanor Cross. Admittedly it has been lost, and we don't know where exactly it was, but it was important in its day. There is a good summary of current understanding at http://www.saracockerill.com/#!The-first-of-the-disappeared-crosses-Grantham/c1q8z/893A42BE-3683-477A-BCD9-A23845BD7672 I think it justifies a short para under Middle Ages Samnviv (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I look forward to reading your account.Bmcln1 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still excessive intricate detail?

A good deal of work has gone into sifting and rephrasing the Grantham page in recent months. I do not think that this criticism made over a year ago is still valid, and I plan to remove it in a week's time if nobody objects and can point to specific intricate detail that they consider excessive. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grantham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Grantham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Grantham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet

Yes, seven years is long enough to wait for a source. But there may be some confusion with Harris' connection to Grantham. Note that this source says: "11 Sep 1939: Air Vice Marshal Arthur Harris assumed command of British Royal Air Force Bomber Command's Lincolnshire-based No. 5 Group with his headquarters at St. Vincent's House in Grantham. No. 5 Group was the sole operator of the Handley-Page Hampden bomber with six Hampden squadrons available at the outbreak of war - Nos. 44 and 50 Squadrons based at Waddington, 49 and 83 Squadrons based at Scampton, and 61 and 144 Squadrons at Hemswell. Harris would command the group for fourteen months before being appointed G. O. C. Bomber Command on 22 Feb 1942." See also the BBC source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hornsby & Sons

A familiar garbled account of this episode.

Who says the British Army "were bemused"? And if "they" were, why did "they" buy four tractors to haul artillery? In fact, a transport officer suggested putting armour plating and a gun on a Hornsby tractor, but the idea was not pursued.

Hornsby sold the patents to Holt, but Holt already had a far more efficient caterpillar track than Hornsby's complex and vulnerable system. What Holt wanted was Hornsby's transmission, so that the vehicle could be steered more effectively.

Ernest Swinton didn't see one of Holt's caterpillar tractors towing a piece of artillery in December 1914. In July 1914 he was told by a friend, Hugh Marriott, about trials in Belgium of a Holt tractor. He took no action other than to forward the report to the transport department. He claims to have had the vague idea of providing the army with armoured vehicles in the first week of October 1914. The idea of adapting a Holt tractor occurred to him on October 19th, when he remembered Marriott's report. He didn't actually see a Holt tractor until June 1915, behind the lines in France.

One must be careful with everything Swinton claims. He was a relentless self-publicist and given to exaggerating his, admittedly considerable, achievements. In 1914 and early 1915 he did try to interest some military and political figures in creating an armoured fighting vehicle, but failed, and he passed up the opportunity to put the idea to Kitchener. In the meantime, the Landship Committee had designed and begun building the two tank prototypes. They absolutely did not "use Hornsby's initial designs", but based their designs on a tractor manufactured by the Bullock Company of Chicago. To say that "One year later the tank was born" plays into Swinton's hand; he was a master of the post hoc when there was credit to be taken. He actually knew nothing of the construction of the prototypes for about 5 months. The tanks that went into action at Flers owed their recruitment and training to him but nothing of their design. Hengistmate (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Grantham"